John Butler

Chris, Here's something for you to think about. The Mannlicher is found at the TSBD on 22 Nov. 1963 as seen in the Lt. Day photo. The Life Backyard Photo and the Detroit Free Press photo was I believe in the last part of February. I don't know when WC CE 139 was taken. Since it was taken by the FBI I would assume that was prior to February, 1964. The photos were returned to the Dallas police by the FBI. Let's say the Life BYP was changed because the scope did not match the photo of Lt. Day holding the TSBD rifle and scope. Or, it could be someone had already seen the CE 139 and decided to try to match the scope there but fell short, no pun intended. The Detroit FP version looks like a complete mess made by an amateur. What do you think?

Comparing BYP rifles: This is John Armstrong’s photo of the Carcano rifle, CE 139: This is the Lt. Day at TSBD rifle: The scopes do not appear to be the same. This is the Life BYP rifle of Jim Hargrove: Once again the scope does not resemble the scope in the other photos. This is the rifle from the BYP by the Detroit Free Press: Weird, isn’t it. It doesn’t have a scope and the stock is abnormal. Can any of these be said to be the same scope? I don’t think so. You can read all kinds of stories about this or that photo being altered by Life or the Detroit Free Press. Reasonable doubt on what the WC and HSCA said.

This crop of the life BYP makes the rifle scope even weirder and easier to see as a fraud. The left hand photo is from Chris Barstow and the right hand photo is one that I have in my photos records and have used several times before including this thread. My copy came off the internet. I believe Jim said his came from Encyclopedia Britannica. Chris, This is what I saw on the shadow issue of Sandy Larsen: Depending on the photo you can be right or wrong.

Here is something that folks might find interesting. This is a photo from Oswald's 201 file. If you look at the building in the photo it appears to be a barracks of sorts. Over the door is the word "Keflavik". I did a google search for the Russian word Keflavik and came up with nothing much at all. However the word "Keflavik" brought up these two pieces of info: "The Keflavík Naval Air Station played an important role during the Cold War, allowing the US to monitor Soviet activities in the North Atlantic. The base played a key role in patrolling the GIUK gap, Greenland-Iceland-UK, through which all Soviet long range aircraft or submarines had to pass before entering the Atlantic." and, "In its Cold War heyday, the tiny town of Keflavik (population 15,129 today) played an outsized role on the world stage as a strategic outpost for the United States and its NATO allies, keeping an eye on Soviet and Russian activities. The Icelandic airbase was home to thousands of US servicemembers and their families. As Moscow-Washington tensions abated, so did the interest in keeping the base staffed up. By 2006, and over the protestations of the Icelandic government which felt somewhat abandoned, the US government returned control of the base to Reykjavik." Over the building is a flag. It is an Icelandic flag. Here is a photo to the Icelandic flag: I know that folks say that there are photos in Oswald's 201 by others. But, this could lead to such questions as "What in the world was Oswald doing in Iceland?" If he ever was in Iceland then why? I don't think I have ever heard or read anything like this. Does anyone know anything concerning this photo? Here is another photo to go with that and clarifies somewhat. That must be a terminal rather than barracks in the background. Doesn't the couple in the center look like Lee and Marina, but probably just tourists. If so, wouldn't that be something.

Jim, Good point. And, even if you could it would not be a significant difference. I do no see any foreshortening that would decrease the length of any of the rifles that would significantly impact any analysis. They are basically in a horizontal plane with little variance vertically or diagonally.

Jim, Here's something new to look at: Notice there are 3 different scopes!!!

Jim, Sure. I'll see what I can do. I'll base what I do on your rifle photos. At one time I had your email address, but I have had to change email programs and no longer do. Please send that again. I'll send it by email so that you can edit it and use only what you consider valuable.

Jim, Chris Barstow may very well be right is suspecting that the scope is a put together cut and paste item. I base this not only on the scope other features pointed to in this crop and enlargement of the BYP rifle. The arrow that points to the scope area has already had peculiarities described. The arrow pointing to the bolt handle is another problem. I don't think you will be able to find another photo of a bolt handle of a rifle that looks like that. When compared to the WC photo that handle clearly screams cut and paste fraud. The long spidery fingers are very weird. The smallest finger has a extra large appearance at the end of the finger. The last and second to last fingers there do not appear to have knuckles at the bottom of the hand. There are deep shadows separating those fingers suggesting no knuckles there. And, they should be there. The first and middle fingers have irregular outlines and distorted shapes that suggest cut and pasting. But, they do have an area between fingers that shows the bottom part of the hand are knuckles as versus the other part of the hand. The knuckles should be in a line straight across the bottom of the hand as shown here. The thumb is thicker than one should be in comparison to the fingers. This suggests that the M-C rifle in the BYP didn't have a scope on the rifle and one was added. Who would of ever thought of that?

Jim, Here's one for Chris to work on. Are the two rifles the same as measured from the end of the front part of the stock to the end of the rifle. The WC rifle barrel at the end, illustrated by the red line just to show the correct area, measures roughly 35 mm and the BYP rifle at the end measures 37 mm. Is this true or simply the difference in the size of the rifles portrayed here?

Jim, You said, "In the meantime, American-born Lee Oswald remained in Japan where he was rather famously treated for venereal disease. All these treatments happened while Harvey Oswald was aboard the Skagit and in Taiwan." I want to focus in on Lee Oswald's VD. It may be of no importance or might be of importance. I'm not a medical person and have little knowledge of these things. What knowledge I have of this matter says that Oswald may not have had a Venereal Disease. The 1950s and 60s was a time when the medical profession had trouble diagnosing and treating viral diseases. Oswald was diagnosed with an extracellular disease m. gonococcui.. Extracellular refers to a bacteriological infection such as gonorrhea . So, he was treated with penicillin and other drugs that work on VDs such as gonorrhea. His symptoms should have cleared within 2-3 days, but did not. They lingered from pre- Sept. 16 to Oct. 24, 1958, about 40+ days. This I find this extraordinary and suspicious. On the 24th he is finally being cleared of his disease. There is a note there in another handwriting prescribing pyridium. Pyridium in those days was generally prescribed with furandantin and are sulfa drugs to treat urine tract infections if penicillin doesn't work. Sulfa drugs work on intracellular or viral infections. How do I know this? Army medics explained all of this to me when I had to deal with this concerning a young GI. I was stationed in Korea where 70% of the GIs there caught some type of VD. I'm going to bet the same situation applied in Japan. I had to deal with this when one young man refused to take these drugs and was found in bed very sick, feverish and bleeding from his penis because of a VD resistant to penicillin and he was refusing to take the sulfa drugs, furandantin and pyridium prescribed. All that said, I think this medical record could be a fraud designed to give Lee Oswald cover while he did something else. A 6 weeks treatment for a VD is ludicrous. I think the different writing, handwritten extra note on pyridium is there so that anyone who do have knowledge of these matters would not get too suspicious and simply think that Oswald was misdiagnosed for a period of time and was not treated properly. Or, this may be a true record. If so, the key to understanding that would be the prescription of pyridium for 5 days. That seems to have cleared his "severe heavy discharge". All in all, Army and Marine doctors and medics were very familiar with venereal diseases and would not allowed this situation to linger for 40 days. It is my opinion that something is up here. PS, This is a great example of the Harvey and Lee notion. Harvey and Lee may be in different areas at different times, but eventually they will be in the same area at the same time.

Oswald Timeline and Oswald and Subic Bay by boat: October 27, 1957: LHO accidentally shoots himself in the arm with a derringer. November 15, 1957: LHO is discharged from the hospital at Yokosuka, (He spends 19 days in the hospital). Isn’t that an excessive length of time for a minor wound? November 20, 1957: LHO’s unit sails for the Philippine Islands. March 7, 1958: LHO's unit sails for Atsugi. March 18, 1958: The unit reaches Atsugi. Roscoe White and Subic Bay: 25 Nov. 57 by boat to Subic Bay- arrives 29 Nov. 57. 15 Mar. 58 by boat to Atsugi- arrives 17 Mar. 58. Jim, I notice in the movement orders of White and Oswald there is no paper for Oswald traveling to and from Japan and the Phillipines / Atsugi to Subic Bay. The timeline says his unit traveled by boat (sailed). It says his unit rather than him. Why is there no paper like White for this? Did he go with them or was he sent later by plane? This photo found in the military photo sections of his 201 file might suggest traveling by air. This appears to be an aerial view taken by Oswald since it is in his 201 file. It might be Oswald got to fly around the Subic Bay area. If so then why? It is a bit strange so I thought I would get your view on it.

Jim, Chris Barstow's presentation is not comparable to yours. I don't know whether he noticed or not, but his orientation of the two rifles in his presentation are different from yours. His orientation says that the angle of the scope on both the BYP and WC rifles are the same. Yours says they are not. In this comparison, I used his method of showing angles. The angles of the BYP scope is not the same as the WC scope. In Chris's presentation he has them roughly the same. The greater length of the WC scope in relationship to the BYP scope is unarguable. The different orientation angle (tilt) in IMO is also unarguable with the two scopes. Enlarge the image above and you will see greater differences. But, others may argue that to have an argument. The butt of the stock IMO in the two rifles is different and that is unarguable. But, others may suggest they are not the same due to shadows or some other detail. An enlargement of the stock of the BYP photo shows there is not a shadow present obscuring the shape of the butt stock. In the photos I have of the BYP 133a there is not enough resolution to clearly see the stock as is shown in Jim Hargroves photo. So, I am relying on that photo which Jim has explained the provenance of clearly. There should be a shadow on the trousers of the Oswald figure and I think you can see that. But, that shadow is much lighter than any suggested for below the stock which might alter the shape of the stock. Any shadow under the stock should match the shadow on the trousers. And, that is not the case. The downward angle orientation from the top of the stock matches the upward angle of the stock from the bottom of the stock.

Jim, We shouldn't forget Hemming, "Gerald Patrick "Gerry" Hemming, Jr. (March 1, 1937 – January 28, 2008) was a former U.S. Marine, mercenary and Central Intelligence Agency operative", as part of a trio working in the same areas as Oswald and White. To me, this says the others who knew Hemming were connected to intelligence matters. I'm not to sure that White knew Hemming but Oswald knew both. Oswald might be the central connection of a much wider Oswald Project. And, then we have Kerry Thornley who also traveled with Oswald to Japan or was it coming back? He definitely was in New Orleans later and in contact with Oswald where he was rumored to be having an affair with Marina. I don't know how reliable that rumor was based on Judith Baker's story. Admiring or lusting after a black man on the street, according to Ruth Paine, and this affair might be the reason Oswald was said to beat Marina, or was it jealousy of Lee, or vice versa, jealously of Harvey that resulted in Marina's beating. And, which one was allegedly doing the beating is the question? Remember the Minsk photo of Marina hugging, with a pleasant expression, a non-Harvey Oswald character probably Lee. Pardon my wandering off into speculation. The part about the photo is not speculation. Oswald's embarkation orders show him going to Japan and then later returning. Shouldn't there be some sort of movement orders to get to the Subic Bay area where Hemming claims Oswald was out hunting Huks and received some kind of wound. Was this a Lee wound that Harvey had to duplicate by shooting himself in the barracks? Just speculation here but an interesting thought.

When I said there is little evidence to connect Oswald to White in the marines, I did not know this. David Josephs did a fine forum presentation on the idea in 2013: WCD443 Says Roscoe White was Oswald's Friend in Japan By David Josephs, November 26, 2013 in JFK Assassination Debate There are a couple of photos that illustrate this notion: and, I can now say with some confidence that Oswald (at least one of probably both) knew Roscoe White in the marines and later in Dallas. I don't see Sandy Larsen's shadow. The lower part of the stock is fairly uniform from the trigger assembly to the bottom of the butt stock. The bottom of the stock in this area is rough and not perfect due to cut and paste irregularities. What I do see is what Jack White called sanding indications to make a cut and paste item fit into a photo better. These are the white areas below the top red line and the area above the bottom red line. The angle of the stock moving downward from the top of the butt plate is greater than the WC rifle.

Jim, I don't think I adequately explained how I analyzed your two rifle photos. You made it really easy to do by providing the two photos and placing them into a relationship where there is little difference in size and orientation. And, even if there are differences the differences don't matter if the two rifles are identical. You could have shown the BYP rifle twice the size of the WC rifle for clarity and it would not have mattered. You could have orientated the BYP rifle into a vertical position and it would not have mattered if the two rifles were identical. That was the major assumption (null hypothesis) in the analysis. The two rifles are identical. I drew an arbitrary line through the center of the rifle so the top part of the rifle and the bottom part of the rifle can be compared in the two photos. Although arbitrary, the red center line is very effective since the line can be drawn from the same points on the two rifles, the top of the butt stock at the end and the top of the barrel at the front. Based on 35 years of doing art work I have a fair eye for the difference / sameness of details in objects. What I noticed is expressed in the red lines and pointed to by the arrows. You said, "After more study, I’m beginning to see what you mean about the scope tilt. If I’d been able to better align the two images, it would probably be more obvious. QUESTION: Shouldn’t the tilt be the same in such similar rifles, and, if it isn’t, wouldn’t at least one of the scopes have to be improperly aimed?". I can't really answer that question with full confidence since I am not an expert of rifle scopes and rifle mounts. I believe most rifle scope mounts mount the scope parallel to the rifle. If one is tilted then there could be some malfunction, mounting misalignment, or the scope mount is simply made that way. This is why I suggest the scopes seen in the BYP and WC photos could be different. Based on what I see, I believe they are different mounts. As far as shooting the WC rifle with the scope in that tilted position, I think it would be possible to hit the target if the scope was properly sighted for windage and elevation. That goes for all scopes. And, for all rifles that are shooting at a distance. Scoped or un-scoped there needs to be a sighting (zeroing in) of the rifle before accurate shooting can occur. Roscoe White is my favorite for the authorship of the BYPs. I believe Oswald knew White in the marines. There is little evidence to say so, but that is my belief. Roscoe White in the marines is in Oswald's 201 file. Why would they do that if there wasn't some connection. I trust your judgement. Feel free to use what I post in any way you think best. PS "As for the “spidery fingers,” not sure if that is an issue or just an optical oddity, but we do think the fingers belong to Roscoe White, along with the body and wide chin. Roscoe White is shown at left in the photos below." If you examine the anatomy of the fingers they appear to be faked. I too think the fingers belong to White. That's why I probably said that. A good question might be "Where did Roscoe learn his camera tricks?"

"Also note that the 201 file images also include quite a few photos which are the Paine's'. The first set, in Commission Documents, is a more accurate reflection of what can be dubbed the "Oswald photos". And many of those were taken by other people. Your observation that he took less photos as time went on is correct. The HSCA , via Cecil Kirk, tried to imply otherwise." Jeff, Thanks for that tip. It will be easier trying to identify things.

Jim, There is something like 400+ photos in the Ferrell pdf. Some are repeats and some are simply not viewable. Many of the well known photos from books or the internet are in better viewing shape than the ones found in the pdf. This leads me to believe that there were other sources for these photos and the ones in the pdf were modified and just thrown in to have a photo file. Probably wrong on that. I haven't had a chance to look at these photos in detail, just scanning through the collection. There is not a good numbering or description system. There are some early photos in the collection that Marina Oswald was asked to identify. But, relating those to the photos is difficult. There were a lot of military photos. Oswald seems to have spent a lot of time in the field for a "tech guy". There seems to be joint operations between the army and marines in these photos. I'll look at those closer to see if that's so. In the Japanese scene I posted earlier when I first saw that there leaped to mind the VD in the line of duty thing found in his medical records. I wonder how many marines came up with VD being stationed in Japan. In Korea in 1967 the odds were 70 % of all GIs would catch that particular disease.

Oswald was not a camera shy guy. He chronicled his career everywhere early on, but less in later years in film. A scene from Oswald's life, probably never seen by most. It appears to be a red light district in Japan. Maybe, this is where he performed his duty. Anyway, the Mary Ferrell's Oswald's CIA 201 is filled with images from his past in Russia, Japan, New Orleans, etc. Unfortunately, a good deal of the images are of low quality and not really that informative due to quality. And, my slightly cynical nature makes me wonder about that. All in all, there are images available that I have not seen in books or on the internet.

Thanks Jeff, I looked briefly at Commission Document 443. Interesting photos. I am going to look at those closer later. Once again thanks for the references.

Jim, Are these photos and negatives available to be viewed? It would be interesting to see what they are. Alan J. Weberman, if memory serves, had photos developed from the film in one of Oswald's cameras. They were interesting showing things that the WC didn't see. I wonder about the others?

Jim, The orientation of the BYP rifle in relation to the orientation of the WC rifle IMO doesn't matter that much. The two rifles do not need to be parallel in order to show that the WC rifle's scope tilts downward and the BYP rifle tilts slightly upward. Or, is at least the BYP rifle scope is in the same plane as the red line I drew from the butt to the front end of the rifle. You can put the BYP rifle in a vertical position and that would still be the same. The WC rifle's scope points significantly downwards. This differs from the BYP scope suggesting a different mount. You can also see the shirt of the Oswald figure through the BYP scope mount and that indicates a different scope mount. Some may say this is simply light reflecting off the metal of the mount and this may be true. However, that light area has the same quality as light areas on the shirt of the Oswald figure. The front end of the BYP scope is larger as indicated by the sloping line at the bottom of the front part of the scope. If not larger at least shaped differently. The BYP's bolt handle protrudes lower than the wooden stock of the rifle in comparison to what is shown in the above CE 139 exhibit. One would ordinarily think that this is simply due to camera angle or the orientation of the rifle in the BYP photo. But, the butt stocks seem to be in a vertical position in both photos. Mean while the front of the BYP rifle seems to be orientated slightly towards the back of the photo. If you look at the front part of the rifle, particularly the barrel, you will notice that the outline is rough and jagged indicating the rifle is a cut and paste item. The Oswald figure's long spidery fingers do not appear to be natural either. The bolt handle appears to be painted on when compared to the WC rifle, CE 139. It is not perfectly symmetrical as the bolt handle in the WC rifle photo. In the BYP photo the trigger, trigger guard, and magazine do not appear to be there. But, on lightening the photo they are there.

The WC scope appears to be significantly larger than a difference produced by camera angles or distance of the rifle photographed. The WC scope protrudes beyond the bolt assembly by a greater distance than the BYP scope. Both scopes protrude beyond the scope mount at about the same distance to the front. The WC scope is tilted downward at a greater degree than the BYP scope which is tilted upwards. This may well indicate that the two scope mounts are different. The rifle stocks appear to be different due to the sculpting of the stock of the BYP rifle has greater curves than the WC stock. The bolt grip or handle seems to be different in the two rifles according to the red lines drawn from the top of the butt stock to the top of the rifle's end.

The second set of windows from the east side on the 4th floor appears to have someone there. If Yola Hopson and Ruth Nelson are in the 4th set of windows from the east side of the TSBD then who is in the second set of windows? Adams, etc. are in the 3rd set of windows from the east side of the TSBD. Mary Hollies and Betty Foster are either elsewhere on the 4th of 5th floor. Mary Hollies is supposedly the girl in the window in a later photo. Judy McCully can't make up her mind if she was on the 4th floor on the front steps of the TSBD. So, who is there if anybody? The standard for that time of day should be shades drawn to block sunlight and heat from coming into the well lit air conditioned office space.

Andrej, Thanks for your correction on the black man in a red shirt. I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I was saying. This frame corrects my error on the black man in the red shirt. PM / Oswald disappears briefly in this version of the Towner film and leaves the black man in a red shirt as the only one in a red shirt visible for a brief time. PM / Oswald reappears in this frame. This matches the Martin film except for a lighter red shirt which I have speculated is a color problem of the Martin film. As far as I know these are the only two films that show Oswald on Elm Street as the presidential limousine passes. The Towner film shows none of the Altgens 6 characters in the doorway of the TSBD as the presidential limousine passes. You can't see them either in the Hughes film.

Andrej, I found this photo in another post, Davidson’s Swan Song- Math Rules, and thought of you. You have done extensive work on the color of Prayer Man’s clothing. PM wore a light reddish shirt, and grey trousers that day. You don’t really see that in this Towner frame that well. But, it gives you a place to look for other frames in the Towner film. Here is a sample in which you will see a light red shirt and grey or tan trousers. If you think the notion is worth pursuing then this maybe a good confirmation of your work. You know my notion that PM was on Elm Street prior to being seen in the doorway of the TSBD. The Towner film, which I consider not much more than a cartoon, has a fairly stable background that matches the Martin film. There are now two films showing a PM like figure on Elm Street as the presidential limousine passes. And, another: The Martin film shows the shirt as redder than Towner: